More than policies or laws, corporate politics often dictates the results of internal conflicts. The implications of these dynamics can have long-term effects on careers and organizational culture.

Emma Tahir’s case against National Grid highlights this intersection—where power dynamics, internal structures, and leadership failure outweighed company policies meant to protect employees.

Background

In 2020, Emma joined National Grid's trainee program with high hopes. Initially, Tahir, a holder of a law degree from Leeds University, had joined the National Grid through a construction development program, drawing a salary of £30,000. She encountered repeated sexual harassment from her mentor, a senior figure responsible for her career development. Despite her discomfort, her harasser's behavior persisted. When she finally sought HR’s help, the system failed her. National Grid’s handling of the case was not only ineffective but also victimized her further. In 2023, an Employment Tribunal ruled in Emma’s favor, awarding her significant compensation for the harassment and victimization she faced.

Key Points of the Case

• Harassment by a Mentor: Emma's mentor repeatedly crossed professional boundaries, making inappropriate comments and advances.
• Ineffective Internal Processes: National Grid, instead of addressing the issue, pushed her into a formal investigation that worsened her experience.
• Corporate Retaliation: Emma was isolated within the company, leading to her forced resignation.
• Legal Victory: The Tribunal awarded her £357,004, acknowledging the severe mishandling of her case.

The tribunal ruled in Tahir's favor, finding that National Grid had subjected her to 26 acts of sexual harassment and 8 acts of victimisation from her line manager and mentor Colin Higgins. Judge Joanna Wade awarded Tahir £357,004 in compensation, which included:

• £40,000 for injury to feelings
• £10,000 for psychiatric injury
• £5,000 in aggravated damages
• 15% ACAS uplift (£11,240.17)
• £73,719.47 for future losses

Unpacking the Corporate Response

This case reflects a familiar pattern in many corporate environments. While Emma’s experience is personal and unique, the way HR and senior management handled the situation is common across many organizations. Corporate politics often shapes the response to complaints, and unfortunately, it usually works in favor of the harasser rather than the victim.

From Emma T. own words, she describes how National Grid mishandled her case: “I know how I was made to feel at work; all I asked for was to be moved to a different team, without any investigation. Instead, NG pressured me to submit a formal grievance, rejected that grievance, overturned it on appeal, and then shifted to a disciplinary approach. They used the disciplinary process to withhold the outcome of my complaint about the perpetrator, despite the exceptional evidence in what is often a he-said-she-said situation.”

This stark account underscores how corporate politics can manipulate the system to protect the organization while leaving the employee in a state of uncertainty and isolation.

Here’s the corporate playbook:

• Once the incident is reported to HR, they assess the power dynamics and the potential impact on the organization. Their primary focus is on protecting the company's interests, not the victim’s well-being.
• The first step is to make the victim feel as though they are at fault for speaking up. This may involve gaslighting or outright ignoring complaints, especially when coming from junior staff.
• HR then evaluates the harasser’s importance to the organization. If the harasser is a high performer or well-connected within the company, HR’s objective shifts to minimizing fallout for the organization, rather than taking the victim’s complaint seriously.
• Senior leaders and HR often collaborate to dissuade the victim from pursuing the complaint. They may subtly suggest that speaking up could harm their future career or that they are overreacting. Legal jargon and the threat of disciplinary action are used to intimidate the victim into backing down.
• Senior management, often with long-standing ties to the company, tends to take the side of the harasser. In Emma’s case, around 18 people were involved in the investigation, and most of them aligned with the harasser due to their connections and concern over the company’s reputation. For example, National Grid’s Chief People Officer, Claudia Nicoll, had been with the company since 2008, having spent her entire career there. With such deep-rooted relationships, senior leaders are often more invested in protecting the company’s image than supporting the victim.
• You may find that, despite collecting evidence against a harasser or toxic manager, they remain employed—just as in Emma’s case. Even with clear proof, HR can play different games to protect the organization’s reputation. They might send the individual on a "sabbatical" or quietly report that the person is no longer with the company, when in fact, they’re just repositioning them to avoid further scrutiny.
• If the victim persists, the company might assign a more personable HR representative to "befriend" them. This person will appear sympathetic, but their real aim is to gauge how much evidence the victim has, should they take the case to a tribunal.
• Meanwhile, the victim is expected to continue delivering on work targets, often under immense stress. Failure to meet expectations can lead to a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), which paves the way for an eventual dismissal or a smoother "exit."

This process is designed to wear the victim down, making it easier for the company to push them out while maintaining the harasser's position. Many victims choose to leave quietly, but those who take the company to a tribunal often face long battles and risk being blacklisted within the industry.

If you think that working for a multinational organization with a well-documented system of policies and internal investigations teams means they’ll have your back, don’t be fooled.

These systems are designed to be self-preserving. Internal investigations, even those aimed at tackling inefficiency or internal politics, often work to protect the organization’s stability, not to support the individual raising the complaint. The system, no matter how well-structured it seems, is built to ensure minimal disruption, and unfortunately, this often means protecting those in power—even when there's evidence against them.

Practical Tips for Professionals

Take time off if possible to recharge your batteries and prepare yourself for what could be a long, emotionally taxing process. Maintaining stable mental health is crucial when navigating corporate politics and potential conflicts. Remember, your mental resilience will be one of your strongest assets.

Be prepared for the reality that the majority of your colleagues may not support you. They are likely to side with the organization, as their careers, promotions, and salaries are tied to aligning with corporate interests. The pressure to conform can make it difficult for others to stand with you, even if they sympathize.

Additionally, many free legal advisors may not fully grasp the complexity of corporate structures and politics. They often provide a high-level overview, which, while helpful, may not be enough to arm you for the intricate battles you’ll face. It’s important to seek advice from professionals who truly understand the nuances of the corporate world.

• Arm Yourself with Knowledge: Understand your workplace rights under laws such as the Equality Act 2010. Knowledge is your first line of defense in navigating tricky corporate dynamics.
• Maintain a Detailed Record: Always document incidents and interactions thoroughly. These records are invaluable if you need to escalate your complaint or protect yourself legally.
• Recognize HR’s Role: While HR should be your advocate, their primary role is to protect the company. If your concerns are not being taken seriously, consider seeking external legal advice.
• Stay Resilient: Speaking out can be intimidating, but staying silent allows the power imbalance to continue. If possible, build a support network both inside and outside the workplace to help you through difficult times.
• Seek External Validation: Don’t rely solely on internal feedback, especially if you suspect retaliation. Reach out to industry bodies, mentors, or even legal advisors to get a clear perspective on your situation.

Conclusion

Emma’s case is not just a lesson in corporate politics, but a reflection of a much larger issue that’s deeply ingrained in many organizations. Despite legal victories, the corporate machine often remains unchanged, prioritizing reputation over fairness. I know that companies, especially large corporations like National Grid, are unlikely to reform their internal dynamics. Cases like this happen far more often than we realize, and this is simply how the system functions.

What’s most troubling is that companies will continue to hire new employees, and many of them may find themselves in similar circumstances, facing the same struggles Emma did, without any significant changes in policies or culture. The corporate world can be unforgiving, so it's essential to be prepared, understand your rights, and stay vigilant when navigating these environments.

During the final hearing in May, National Grid sent Chief People Officer Claudia Nicoll as a witness. When asked if the company regretted how it treated Emma, Nicoll responded, “everything in life has lessons,” but failed to name a single one. This evasiveness speaks volumes about the company’s refusal to acknowledge the damage caused.

My Consultant Services: Navigating Corporate Challenges

I offer professional advisory services for individuals facing challenging corporate environments, including situations of harassment, retaliation, or victimization. My role is not legal but strategic—I help you navigate the internal processes, understand your rights, and prepare for potential corporate responses.